Tamoxifen for relapse of ovarian cancer

Hormonal Therapy for Gynecological Cancers: How Far Has Science Progressed toward Clinical Applications?

In recent years, hormone therapy has been shown to be a remarkable treatment option for cancer. Hormone treatment for gynecological cancers involves the use of medications that reduce the level of hormones or inhibit their biological activity, thereby stopping or slowing cancer growth. Hormone treatment works by preventing hormones from causing cancer cells to multiply. Aromatase inhibitors, anti-estrogens, progestin, estrogen receptor (ER) antagonists, GnRH agonists, and progestogen are effectively used as therapeutics for vulvar cancer, cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, uterine cancer, and ovarian cancer. Hormone replacement therapy has a high success rate. In particular, progestogen and estrogen replacement are associated with a decreased incidence of gynecological cancers in women infected with human papillomavirus (HPV). The activation of estrogen via the transcriptional functionality of ERα may either be promoted or decreased by gene products of HPV. Hormonal treatment is frequently administered to patients with hormone-sensitive recurring or metastatic gynecologic malignancies, although response rates and therapeutic outcomes are inconsistent. Therefore, this review outlines the use of hormonal therapy for gynecological cancers and identifies the current knowledge gaps.

PARAGON (ANZGOG-0903): a phase 2 study of anastrozole in asymptomatic patients with estrogen and progesterone receptor-positive recurrent ovarian cancer and CA125 progression

Objective

A subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) may benefit from antiestrogen therapy with higher response rates reported in tumors that are strongly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER⁺). PARAGON is a basket trial that incorporates 7 phase 2 trials investigating the activity of anastrozole in patients with ER⁺ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive (PR⁺) recurrent/metastatic gynecological cancers.

Methods

Postmenopausal women with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC, who were asymptomatic and had cancer antigen 125 (CA125) progression after response to first line chemotherapy, where chemotherapy was not clinically indicated. Patients received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Results

Fifty-four patients were enrolled (52 evaluable). Clinical benefit at three months (primary endpoint) was observed in 18 patients (34.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=23%–48%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months (95% CI=2.1–3.1). The median duration of clinical benefit was 6.5 months (95% CI=2.8–11.7). Most patients progressed within 6 months of starting anastrozole but 12 (22%) continued treatment for longer than 6 months. Anastrozole was well tolerated. In the exploratory analysis, ER histoscores and the intensity of ER staining did not correlate with clinical benefit rate or PFS.

Conclusion

A subset of asymptomatic patients with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC and CA125 progression had durable clinical benefit on anastrozole, with acceptable toxicity. Anastrozole may delay symptomatic progression and the time to subsequent chemotherapy. The future challenge is to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from an aromatase inhibitor and whether the clinical benefit could be increased by the addition of other agents.

The roles of pathology in targeted therapy of women with gynecologic cancers

The role of the pathologist in the multidisciplinary management of women with gynecologic cancer has evolved substantially over the past decade. Pathologists' evaluation of parameters such as pathologic stage, histologic subtype, grade and microsatellite instability, and their identification of patients at risk for Lynch syndrome have become essential components of diagnosis, prognostic assessment and determination of optimal treatment of affected women. Despite the use of multimodality treatment and combination cytotoxic chemotherapy, the prognosis of women with advanced-stage gynecologic cancer is often poor. Therefore, expanding the arsenal of available systemic therapies with targeted therapeutic agents is appealing. Anti-angiogenic therapies, immunotherapy and poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are now routinely used for the treatment of advanced gynecologic cancer, and many more are under investigation. Pathologists remain important in the clinical management of patients with targeted therapy, by identifying potentially targetable tumors on the basis of their pathologic phenotype, by assessing biomarkers that are predictive of response to targeted therapy (e.g. microsatellite instability, PD1/PDL1 expression), and by monitoring treatment response and resistance. Pathologists are also vital to research efforts exploring novel targeted therapies by identifying homogenous subsets of tumors for more reliable and meaningful analyses, and by confirming expression in tumor tissues of novel targets identified in genomic, epigenetic or other screening studies. In the era of precision gynecologic oncology, the roles of pathologists in the discovery, development and implementation of targeted therapeutic strategies remain as central as they are for traditional (surgery-chemotherapy-radiotherapy) management of women with gynecologic cancers.

Managing hereditary breast cancer risk in women with and without ovarian cancer

Current guidelines recommend that all women with ovarian cancer undergo germline genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Increasingly, genetic testing is being performed via panels that include other genes that confer a high or moderate risk of breast cancer. In addition, many women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer are not found to have a mutation, but may have increased risk of breast cancer for which surveillance and risk reduction strategies are indicated. This review discusses how to assess and manage an increased risk of breast cancer through surveillance, preventive medications, and risk-reducing surgery. Assessing and managing the increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer can be challenging. For the first few years after an ovarian cancer diagnosis, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a relatively low risk of breast cancer, and their prognosis is largely determined by the ovarian cancer. However, if these women remain in remission after two years, the risk of breast cancer becomes comparable with, and in some cases exceeds, their risk of ovarian cancer recurrence. For these women, breast cancer surveillance and risk reduction becomes important to their overall health. Specifically, for BRCA1/2 carriers who are diagnosed with early-stage ovarian cancer, we recommend regular breast cancer surveillance and consideration of risk reduction with medication and/or prophylactic mastectomy. For women with advanced ovarian cancer who do not achieve remission, breast cancer surveillance or prophylaxis is not of value. However, among carriers with more favorable advanced disease, it is reasonable to initiate breast cancer surveillance. Patients with less favorable advanced stage disease who achieve sustained remission (>2-5years) should also consider more aggressive strategies for breast cancer screening and prevention. For mutation carriers who remain in remission after five years, prophylactic mastectomy can be considered.

Hormonal Maintenance Therapy for Women With Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary or Peritoneum

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes associated with hormonal maintenance therapy (HMT) compared with routine observation (OBS) after primary cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy in women with stage II to IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Patients and Methods Eligibility criteria for patients from our database were: treatment with primary surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, stage II to IV disease, at least 2 years of follow-up for patients who had not experienced recurrence, and adequate clinical information. The two groups were compared for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, and a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed. Subset analyses for patients who were disease free or had persistent disease were also performed. Results Between 1981 and 2013, 203 eligible patients-133 who underwent OBS and 70 who received HMT-were seen at our institution. Median PFS for patients who underwent OBS was 26.4 months, compared with 64.9 months for those who received HMT ( P < .001). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the two groups (102.7 v 115.7 months, respectively). For subgroups of women who were disease free or had persistent disease, median PFS was superior for those who received HMT (81.1 v 30.0 months; P < .001 and 38.1 v 15.2 months; P < .001, respectively). Women who received HMT had a significantly lower risk of disease progression compared with those who underwent OBS (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.64; P < .001). Conclusion Women with stage II to IV low-grade serous carcinoma who received HMT after primary treatment had significantly longer PFS compared with women who underwent OBS. These findings warrant further investigation using a prospective trial design.

Hormonal Maintenance Therapy for Women With Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary or Peritoneum

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes associated with hormonal maintenance therapy (HMT) compared with routine observation (OBS) after primary cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy in women with stage II to IV low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum. Patients and Methods Eligibility criteria for patients from our database were: treatment with primary surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy, stage II to IV disease, at least 2 years of follow-up for patients who had not experienced recurrence, and adequate clinical information. The two groups were compared for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, and a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed. Subset analyses for patients who were disease free or had persistent disease were also performed. Results Between 1981 and 2013, 203 eligible patients-133 who underwent OBS and 70 who received HMT-were seen at our institution. Median PFS for patients who underwent OBS was 26.4 months, compared with 64.9 months for those who received HMT ( P < .001). No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the two groups (102.7 v 115.7 months, respectively). For subgroups of women who were disease free or had persistent disease, median PFS was superior for those who received HMT (81.1 v 30.0 months; P < .001 and 38.1 v 15.2 months; P < .001, respectively). Women who received HMT had a significantly lower risk of disease progression compared with those who underwent OBS (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.64; P < .001). Conclusion Women with stage II to IV low-grade serous carcinoma who received HMT after primary treatment had significantly longer PFS compared with women who underwent OBS. These findings warrant further investigation using a prospective trial design.

Molecular targeted therapy in gynaecologic malignancies: primer for radiologists

The identification of characteristic genetic alteration in gynaecological malignancies has opened the door for molecular targeted therapy. The purpose of this review is to provide a primer for the radiologist on these agents with emphasis on the role of imaging in treatment response assessment and drug toxicities. The use of targeted therapy in gynaecological malignancies will likely increase in the future and make the role of the radiologist critical in response assessment and detection of toxicities.

The role of reproductive hormones in epithelial ovarian carcinogenesis

Epithelial ovarian cancer comprises ∼85% of all ovarian cancer cases. Despite acceptance regarding the influence of reproductive hormones on ovarian cancer risk and considerable advances in the understanding of epithelial ovarian carcinogenesis on a molecular level, complete understanding of the biologic processes underlying malignant transformation of ovarian surface epithelium is lacking. Various hypotheses have been proposed over the past several decades to explain the etiology of the disease. The role of reproductive hormones in epithelial ovarian carcinogenesis remains a key topic of research. Primary questions in the field of ovarian cancer biology center on its developmental cell of origin, the positive and negative effects of each class of hormones on ovarian cancer initiation and progression, and the role of the immune system in the ovarian cancer microenvironment. The development of the female reproductive tract is dictated by the hormonal milieu during embryogenesis. Intensive research efforts have revealed that ovarian cancer is a heterogenous disease that may develop from multiple extra-ovarian tissues, including both Müllerian (fallopian tubes, endometrium) and non-Müllerian structures (gastrointestinal tissue), contributing to its heterogeneity and distinct histologic subtypes. The mechanism underlying ovarian localization, however, remains unclear. Here, we discuss the role of reproductive hormones in influencing the immune system and tipping the balance against or in favor of developing ovarian cancer. We comment on animal models that are critical for experimentally validating existing hypotheses in key areas of endocrine research and useful for preclinical drug development. Finally, we address emerging therapeutic trends directed against ovarian cancer.

Advanced ovarian cancer: what should be the standard of care?

The standard treatment of advanced ovarian cancer is rapidly changing. As we begin to understand that epithelial ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease, our treatment strategies are evolving to include novel biologic drugs that specifically exploit altered pathways. Surgery remains an essential component in the treatment of ovarian cancer; however, the importance of surgical specialization and defining "optimal cytoreduction" as no visible residual disease has been further validated. Ongoing studies are defining the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the upfront treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. In addition, clinical trials are evaluating intraperitoneal, dose dense, antiangiogenic drugs as well as targeted maintenance therapies which will establish new standards of care in the near future.

Hormone response in ovarian cancer: time to reconsider as a clinical target?

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide among women in developed countries and the most lethal of all gynecologic malignancies. There is a critical need for the introduction of targeted therapies to improve outcome. Epidemiological evidence suggests a critical role for steroid hormones in ovarian tumorigenesis. There is also increasing evidence from in vitro studies that estrogen, progestin, and androgen regulate proliferation and invasion of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Limited clinical trials have shown modest response rates; however, they have consistently identified a small subset of patients that respond very well to endocrine therapy with few side effects. We propose that it is timely to perform additional well-designed trials that should include biomarkers of response.

Hormone response in ovarian cancer: time to reconsider as a clinical target?

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide among women in developed countries and the most lethal of all gynecologic malignancies. There is a critical need for the introduction of targeted therapies to improve outcome. Epidemiological evidence suggests a critical role for steroid hormones in ovarian tumorigenesis. There is also increasing evidence from in vitro studies that estrogen, progestin, and androgen regulate proliferation and invasion of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Limited clinical trials have shown modest response rates; however, they have consistently identified a small subset of patients that respond very well to endocrine therapy with few side effects. We propose that it is timely to perform additional well-designed trials that should include biomarkers of response.

Microarray-based oncogenic pathway profiling in advanced serous papillary ovarian carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The identification of specific targets for treatment of ovarian cancer patients remains a challenge. The objective of this study is the analysis of oncogenic pathways in ovarian cancer and their relation with clinical outcome.

METHODOLOGY

A meta-analysis of 6 gene expression datasets was done for oncogenic pathway activation scores: AKT, β-Catenin, BRCA, E2F1, EGFR, ER, HER2, INFα, INFγ, MYC, p53, p63, PI3K, PR, RAS, SRC, STAT3, TNFα, and TGFβ and VEGF-A. Advanced serous papillary tumours from uniformly treated patients were selected (N = 464) to find differences independent from stage-, histology- and treatment biases. Survival and correlations with documented prognostic signatures (wound healing response signature WHR/genomic grade index GGI/invasiveness gene signature IGS) were analysed.

RESULTS

The GGI, WHR, IGS score were unexpectedly increased in chemosensitive versus chemoresistant patients. PR and RAS activation score were associated with survival outcome (p = 0.002;p = 0.004). Increased activations of β-Catenin (p = 0.0009), E2F1 (p = 0.005), PI3K (p = 0.003) and p63 (p = 0.05) were associated with more favourable clinical outcome and were consistently correlated with three prognostic gene signatures.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncogenic pathway profiling of advanced serous ovarian tumours revealed that increased β-Catenin, E2F1, p63, PI3K, PR and RAS-pathway activation scores were significantly associated with favourable clinical outcome. WHR, GGI and IGS scores were unexpectedly increased in chemosensitive tumours. Earlier studies have shown that WHR, GGI and IGS are strongly associated with proliferation and that high-proliferative ovarian tumours are more chemosensitive. These findings may indicate opposite confounding of prognostic versus predictive factors when studying biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Recent progress in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal of the gynecologic malignancies, largely due to the advanced stage at diagnosis in most patients. Screening strategies using ultrasound and the cancer antigen (CA) 125 tumor marker are currently under study and may lower stage at diagnosis but have not yet been shown to improve survival. Women who have inherited a deleterious mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene and those with the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) have the highest risk of developing ovarian cancer but account for only approximately 10% of those with the disease. Other less common and less well-defined genetic syndromes may increase the risk of ovarian cancer, but their contribution to genetic risk is small. A clear etiology for sporadic ovarian cancer has not been identified, but risk is affected by reproductive and hormonal factors. Surgery has a unique role in ovarian cancer, as it is used not only for diagnosis and staging but also therapeutically, even in patients with widely disseminated, advanced disease. Ovarian cancer is highly sensitive to chemotherapy drugs, particularly the platinum agents, and most patients will attain a remission with initial treatment. Recent advances in the delivery of chemotherapy using the intraperitoneal route have further improved survival after initial therapy. Although the majority of ovarian cancer patients will respond to initial chemotherapy, most will ultimately develop disease recurrence. Chemotherapy for recurrent disease includes platinum-based, multiagent regimens for women whose disease recurs more than 6 to 12 months after the completion of initial therapy and sequential single agents for those whose disease recurs earlier. New targeted biologic agents, particularly those involved with the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway and those targeting the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme, hold great promise for improving the outcome of ovarian cancer.

Targeted treatment of recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: current and emerging therapies

With advances in surgical techniques and chemotherapeutic agents, mortality rates from epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have slightly decreased over the last 30 years. However, EOC still ranks as the most deadly gynecologic cancer with an overall 5-year survival rate of 45%. Prognosis is especially disappointing for women with platinum-resistant disease, where 80% of patients will fail to respond to available therapies. Emerging treatment strategies have sub-sequently focused on targets which are integral to tumor growth and metastasis. In this review, we will focus on those innovative agents currently under investigation in clinical trials.

Antiestrogen therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer resulting in 28 months of stable disease: a case report and review of the literature

Hormonal therapy for adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer may provide a low toxicity option in some patients with refractory disease. A 53 year-old patient with stage IIIC papillary serous ovarian cancer previously treated with multiple chemotherapy regimens with platinum-resistant disease was treated with antiestrogen therapy for 28 months before requiring reinstitution of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Hormonal therapy may be effective in a subset of epithelial ovarian cancer patients with endocrine sensitivity and should be considered in the treatment of platinum-resistant patients.

The future of targeted therapies in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the second most common gynecological malignancy and the leading cause of death from gynecological cancer. Most women present with advanced disease with little prospect for cure. There have been some advances in surgical and chemotherapeutic strategies, but these approaches have led to only minor improvements in outcome. There remains a significant risk for recurrence and resistance to therapy, and hence there is a need to improve upon the current treatment options. Molecularly directed therapy aims to target tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment by blocking specific molecular changes in the cancer. The most promising agents so far are the antiangiogenic agents and polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors. This article reviews the various targeted therapeutic approaches under clinical investigation in ovarian cancer and the challenges facing their future success in the clinic.

Management of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with the combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine

INTRODUCTION

Platinum resistant ovarian cancer is a current challenge in Oncology. Current approved therapies offer no more of a 20% of response. New therapeutic options are urgently needed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were treated with the combination of Pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) d1 and Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) d1,8 in a 21 days basis.

RESULTS

10 platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients were treated under compassionate use. Mean previous chemotherapy lines were 3.3. Mean administered cycles were 4. Mean CA 125 decrease was on average of 47%, with one patient experiencing a 95% decrease in her CA 125 level. 1 patient had a complete clinical remission, and 2, had partial radiological responses. Mean Progression free survival was 16.5 weeks, and Overall Survival was 21.2 weeks. Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Deemd to the observed activity, the combination of Pemetrexed and Gemcitabine deserves deeper investigation in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients.

Antiestrogen therapy is active in selected ovarian cancer cases: the use of letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in preselected estrogen receptor (ER)-positive relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer patients and to identify markers that predict endocrine-sensitive disease.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

This was a phase II study of letrozole 2.5 mg daily until clinical or marker evidence of disease progression in previously treated ER-positive ovarian cancer patients with a rising CA125 that had progressed according to Rustin's criteria. The primary end point was response according to CA125 and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) criteria. Marker expression was measured by semiquantitative immunohistochemistry in sections from the primary tumor.

RESULTS

Of 42 patients evaluable for CA125 response, 7 (17%) had a response (decrease of >50%), and 11 (26%) patients had not progressed (doubling of CA125) following 6 months on treatment. The median time taken to achieve the CA125 nadir was 13 weeks (range 10-36). Of 33 patients evaluable for radiological response, 3 (9%) had a partial remission, and 14 (42%) had stable disease at 12 weeks. Eleven patients (26%) had a PFS of >6 months. Subgroup analysis according to ER revealed CA125 response rates of 0% (immunoscore, 150-199), 12% (200-249), and 33% (250-300); P = 0.028, chi(2) for trend. Expression levels of HER2, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 5, trefoil factor 1, and vimentin were associated with CA125 changes on treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of a hormonal agent in a preselected group of ER-positive ovarian cancer patients. A signature of predictive markers, including low HER2 expression, predicts response.

Tamoxifen is safe and effective in gynecological cancer patients with renal dysfunction

Tamoxifen has been found to be safe and effective in gynecological cancer patients with normal renal function. However, to our knowledge, no data exist regarding its effectiveness and toxicity in gynecological cancer patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effects of tamoxifen in patients with recurrent gynecological cancer and CKD. We collected clinical and demographic data for all patients. CKD was defined as a creatinine clearance (CrCl) level of less than 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2), in accordance with the National Kidney Foundation Kidney and Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative, and further categorized as mild, moderate, or severe (CrCl levels of 60-89, 30-59, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively). Twenty-nine patients were included in the study--22 with epithelial ovarian cancer, 4 with peritoneal cancer, and 3 with fallopian tube cancer. Thirteen patients had mild CKD, 13 had moderate, and 3 had severe. Most patients had been treated with 20 mg/day of tamoxifen every 4 weeks. The median duration of treatment was 5 months (range, 1-52 months). The overall complete response, partial response, stable disease, and disease progression rates were 0%, 10%, 41%, and 48%, respectively. Twenty-one percent of patients experienced hot flashes, and 7% experienced nausea. No major adverse reactions occurred. These findings were similar to those for gynecological cancer patients with normal renal function. In conclusion, 20 mg/day of tamoxifen is safe and effective in gynecological cancer patients with CKD.

Hormonal therapies and gynaecological cancers

Hormonal therapy has an established place in the management of women with gynaecological malignancies, including first-line therapy for recurrent receptor-positive endometrial cancer and low-grade stromal sarcoma. There is no place for adjuvant hormonal treatment of these cancers after primary surgery. Primary treatment with either oral or intra-uterine progestagens to preserve fertility in younger women with endometrial carcinoma is effective in about 70% of cases. Response rates to tamoxifen in advanced/recurrent ovarian cancers approximates 10%. To the authors' knowledge, no studies that reasonably compare different progestagens, different routes of therapy, different doses and different hormonal preparations have been published.

Phase II trial of tamoxifen and goserelin in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer

Endocrine therapy is a recognised option in the treatment of chemo-resistant ovarian cancer. We conducted a nonrandomised phase II evaluation of combination endocrine therapy with tamoxifen and goserelin in patients with advanced ovarian cancer that had recurred following chemotherapy. In total, 26 patients entered the study, of which 17 had platinum-resistant disease. The median age was 63 years and enrolled patients had received a median of three chemotherapy regimens prior to trial entry. Patients were given oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily on a continuous basis and subcutaneous goserelin 3.6 mg once a month until disease progression. Using the definition of endocrine response that included patients with stable disease (SD) of 6 months or greater, the overall response rate (clinical benefit rate) was 50%. This included one complete response (CR) (3.8%), two partial responses (PR) (7.7%) and 10 patients with SD (38.5%). The median progression-free interval (PFI) was 4 months (95% CI 2.4–9.6) while the median overall survival (OS) was 13.6 months (95% CI 5.5–30.6). Four patients received treatment for more than 2 years (range 1–31) and one of them is still on treatment. In none of the four patients was there any evidence of recurrent or cumulative treatment related toxicity. Treatment-limiting toxicity was not seen in any of the study population. Endocrine data demonstrated a marked suppression of luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to less than 4% of baseline values. No consistent correlation could be established between LH/FSH suppression and tumour response. Likewise no relationship was observed between Inhibin A/B and pro-alpha C levels and tumour response. Inhibin is unlikely to be a useful surrogate marker for response in locally advanced or metastatic ovarian cancer. Combination endocrine therapy with tamoxifen and goserelin is an active regimen in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients. Hormonal therapy is advantageous in its relative lack of toxicity, ease of administration and tolerability, thus making it suitable for patients with heavily pretreated disease, compromised bone marrow function and other comorbid conditions that contraindicate cytotoxic therapy as well as in patients with indolent disease.